Question from camster

what low voc basement floor paint would you recommend? Could you help it outgas by heating the room up high?

Debra’s Answer

Both Aquapoxy and AFM Safecoat have no-VOC paints designed specifically for application to cement floors.

And remember, cement makes a great nontoxic floor, even in other rooms of the house. If you have a cement slab, it’s less expensive to simply paint it than lay another flooring on top. I’ve seen some beautiful cement floors painted with wonderful textures and patterns.

Add Comment

Question from Heavens123

I am interested in purchasing a bathroom stool from squattypotty.com

I don’t like the plasticone and the bamboo is made by a Chinese company and I am unable to track down the composition. That leaves the mdf version, which is painted mdf.

They purchase the mdf from a company called Plum Creek and when they called the distributor to ask about the mdf they were told it is low emision and CARB (California Air Resource Board) approved. A call to Plum Creek revealed that their mdf is Phase II compliant and has been for years.

While they do make a no-added formaldehyde mdf, I’m going to assume it’s the regular one being used. Is this a reasonable product to consider purchasing as the only mdf item in my home?

It’s a small stool, not a bigger piece of furniture and I see no comparable product of other materials. How stringent is CARB Phase II? If I bought it should I AFM Safeseal it? Thanks.

Debra’s Answer

Interesting product. At first I thought “There are a lot of wood bathroom stools available,” and then I clicked through and saw the unique design and healthful purpose.

OK, so, as much as I don’t recommend mdf, sometimes we need to weigh the pros vs the cons and see which is greater.

I would say in this case you would probably get a greater health benefit from using the stool than harm from the mdf exposure. Use your own judgement as to whether or not you need to apply Safeseal.

Add Comment

Question from Stacey

Since we are expecting a third child, my husband and I purchased a new Toyota Sienna minivan. I preferred to buy a model that was a year old, but was not able to do so. We were stuck buying a brand new vehicle if we wanted that particular minivan. I at least chose the beige leather instead of cloth for the seating. I did not check out this vehicle on Healthystuff.org before purchasing, and am now worried that my children and I (especially being pregnant) will be exposed to a lot of toxic chemicals in the new car. Do you have any suggestions/recommendations to make it any better? I am tempted to cancel the order since we have not received the car yet…but it is a great vehicle for us and for our needs. The minivan does have a lot of windows, but would a moonroof be a good feature to have? I wasn’t sure if this would make a difference, plus it was an extra, significant cost. I feel I should have done more research, but time is something I don’t have much of… Thanks so much, Debra, for all of your great info

Debra’s Answer

The thing about life is that we are constantly having to make decisions about risk–the benefits we receive from doing something versus the potential of harm.

I realized this a couple of years ago when I was speaking an a conference for insurance agents. Want to present my subject in terms they would relate to, I started reading about insurance and learned about risk management. It so aligns with making decisions about toxics that I included a whole Appendix about Risk Management in my book Toxic Free.

The whole field of risk management is about taking action to minimize loss.

A hazard is something that has the poetntial to cause harm or loss. If you know something is a hazard, and know the likely loss that would result from doing it, then you can do something to eliminate or lessen the loss. There is a standard protocol for risk management that I outline in my book.

You need to assess the risk and then decide if you are willing to subject yourself and your children to the risk in order to have the benefits of this car.

Now without going into all the details of all the possible toxic chemicals that are in car interiors, I will tell you that my personal risk assessment is that I wouldn’t do it. It just wouldn’t be worth it to me to have that level of toxic exposure, especially while you are pregnant, and especially with a newborn. The risk of long term health damage is just too great.

Add Comment

[this is a press release reprinted with permission]

The November/December 2012 issue of E – The Environmental Magazine (now posted at: www.emagazine.com) features a package of articles devoted to the increasing presence of nanoparticles in our food supply.

On the surface, nanoparticles seem to offer many potential benefits: By adding them to foods and food packaging, they can help deliver nutrients, act as thickening agents, enhance taste or flavor or ensure longer freshness of food. But these tiny microscopic versions of silver, zinc, titanium dioxide and other metals and nutrients, largely because of their microscopic size, may cause adverse health impacts.

The problem is that scientists are still determining the health and environmental impacts of these tiny particles, even as industry is forging ahead. Each of these nanoparticles has a distinct way of reacting with the human body, and there is little research to assure us that ingesting these microscopic materials is safe. Even more alarming, there is no information readily available to consumers alerting them as to which products contain nanoparticles, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not keep records on the matter.

E Magazine asked a spokesperson at the FDA: “Where are the nanomaterials most often found within food products?” He answered: “FDA does not maintain a list of food products that contain nanomaterials, so we cannot reliably answer this question.”

Foods Containing Nano

Despite lack of a comprehensive listing, we know that nanoparticles are in the food supply, and have been for at least a decade. Recent research found that foods with caramelized sugar, including bread and corn flakes, contain carbon nanoparticles. Many nutritional supplements — or “nanoceuticals” — come equipped with copper, silver or iron nanoparticles. Nanoparticles can be used to purify water, as anti-caking and gelatin-forming agents, and in packaging to protect against UV light, prevent the growth of microbes or detect contamination. And titanium dioxide lends white pigment to most toothpastes and many processed foods, including Mentos, Trident and Dentyne gum, M&Ms, Betty Crocker Whipped Cream Frosting, Jello Banana Cream Pudding, Vanilla Milkshake Pop Tarts and Nestle Original Coffee Creamer.

Nanoparticles also enter the food supply unintentionally. Biosolids from wastewater treatment plants that are used as fertilizer contains zinc oxide nanoparticles from sunscreens and other products. Research has found that soybeans grown with this fertilizer take up the nanoparticles in their leaves, stems and beans.

And nanoparticles in food wrappings, used to protect the food from contamination, could be contaminating our bodies instead. “We know that there’s nanosilver in food wrapping and food packaging,” says Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “That nanosilver releases ions, so those ions could be getting into the food. The ions are toxic, they are the antimicrobial part of the silver.”

Because companies are not required to label their products as containing nanomaterials, and only do so voluntarily, it is primarily the companies that make supplements, who wish to tout their copper, silver or iron nanoparticles, that give consumers a clue as to what’s inside.

What’s the Worry?

Nanoparticles, whether in consumer goods or in the food supply, are being treated as though they are equivalent to their larger counterparts. In other words, the government considers silver and nano-silver to be essentially the same. But their tiny size means they function quite differently within the body, the full ramifications of which are still coming to light. In 2011, researchers discovered that silver nanoparticles, when inhaled, cause lung toxicity or inflammation in exposed mice.

Similarly, inhaled copper nanoparticles increased the risk of pulmonary infections in mice. Carbon nanotubes, used in super-strong plastics and for computer chips, have presented a particular worry, when research found in 2008 that the particles can damage lungs in a similar fashion as asbestos, which the particles resemble in shape and size.

Ingesting nanoparticles may cause more subtle health problems than inhalation. The particles, due to their small size, can pass into the bloodstream and then accumulate in organs. Once there, writes the American Society of Safety Engineers, they can “disrupt and impair biological, structural and metabolic processes and weaken the immune system.”

And recent research discovered that when chickens consumed large quantities of polystyrene nanoparticles, approved for human consumption, they blocked the animals’ ability to absorb iron. Cornell researcher Gretchen Mahler, one of the authors of the study, says: “The nanomaterials that are being developed all have very different reactivity with human tissues. This means that you can’t apply results with one type of nanoparticle to all other nanoparticles — you have to test them all individually.”